Roaming/Switching Radios is controlled by the client, not the AP. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kuhl, Vince (DotComm) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:11 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [SOCALWUG] WLAN Design Question
> 
> Thanks for the replies. Sorry I am not able to present a 
> clearer picture.
> Some of our users jump from one radio to another, we are 
> using eap and the
> logs show the re-auth/re-assoc occur on the new radio. When 
> this occurs the
> user losses connectivity for their TN3270 session. I am not 
> confident in the
> original network design and am looking for resources on 
> preventing users
> from jumping from radio to radio. Should this be done on the 
> client side?
> Also I understand the "1,6,11" channels are non-overlapping - 
> we attempted
> to spread the frequencies out as much as possible using all 
> channels. If
> this is the case, should you only use "1,6,11"
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 11:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SOCALWUG] WLAN Design Question
> 
> 
> 
> In my (ahem) experience, many "experienced wireless LAN designer(s)" 
> have precious little theoretic base.  They just "know what works".
> 
> e.g. the oft-quoted (but inaccurate) 3 non-overlapping channels.
> 
> Worse are those pretty picture of hexagons with each hexagon 
> representing the (idealized) coverage area of a single AP, 
> with adjacent
> hexagons (APs) in different colors (representing different 
> frequencies),
> promulgating the "1, 6, 11" arguement, and causing anywhere mild to 
> severe interference, no matter what load is applied to the network.
> 
> It causes cognative dissonence when I say it, but the better 
> (dare I say 
>   "correct") way to deploy multiple APs is to put them on the (you'll 
> hate this, I know) *same* channel.  There are limits to this, 
> of course, 
> see below.  At the very least, this makes the "hexagons" 
> somewhat larger.
> 
> This allows 802.11's CSMA/CA to work.  (If the preamble is 
> detected, CCA 
> gets set and the MAC holds off transmitting for the duration 
> of the packet.)
> 
> Move off channel, and all the baseband can 'see' is more 
> noise (due to 
> the in-channel power of the STA (or AP) operating on an 
> adjacent channel).
> 
> If the operation of an adjacent (or alternate) channel STA 
> (all APs are 
> STAs, btw) is such that the local receiver can't decode the preamble 
> (which is sent at the lowest modulation) then you're probably safe 
> moving to the next adjacent (or better, alternate) channel.   
> Thus, the 
> distance between the centers of the hexagons should be about the 
> distance at which you can maintain (for 11b) 1Mbps connectivity.
> 
> Still worse are the people who attempt to engineer large coverage via 
> high-gain omnis on a set of APs.   This actually makes the 
> problem worse 
> (and I can prove it, the math is simple).
> 
> jim
> 
> Jack Unger wrote:
> > Get help from an experienced wireless LAN designer. You 
> likely have too 
> > many access points located too close together. Under 
> normal-use traffic 
> > loads, you will have an unacceptably high level of 
> self-interference 
> > (too many packets colliding with each other). The result 
> will be slow 
> > throughput.
> >          jack
> > 
> > 
> > Kuhl, Vince (DotComm) wrote:
> > 
> >> I was looking for some resources on wlan design. I have a 6 story 
> >> building
> >> with approx 5 radios per floor. All radio's are in the 
> same SSID. The 
> >> idea
> >> was to provide redundancy for the users but most pc's only get an 
> >> acceptable
> >> signal from one radio anyway. It seems as if this one large SSID 
> >> approach is
> >> causing more of an interference problem than anything 
> else. Would it be
> >> better to break the building up into separate SSID's? Any 
> thoughts or
> >> resources would be appreciated.
> >> Thanks
> >>
> > 
> 
> 
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.760 / Virus Database: 509 - Release Date: 9/10/2004
>  
> 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.760 / Virus Database: 509 - Release Date: 9/10/2004
 

Reply via email to